FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FBD INSURANCE PLC (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Scheduled pay and bonus review.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was founded in Ireland in 1970 and underwrites general insurance products for the direct market. The Company employs 813 staff, with 328 employed at Head Office. UNITE Trade Union represents approximately 200 Head Office staff employed in Bluebell, Dublin 12.
In 2004 the Union and Company carried out a review of pay scales, based on agreed external comparisons. this review led to agreed raises in pay scales averaging 6%. There was a commitment by the Company to carry out a further review in 2008.
In 2006 the review of annual bonuses, scheduled since 2003, fell due. The Company indexed the bonus on a unilateral basis and stated that a more meaningful review of bonuses would take place when salary scales were being reviewed in 2008. This review did not take place.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th December 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th February, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that salary scales fell far behind those in agreed comparator companies. The Union has agreed to defer a review of salary scheduled for early 2008 until the first quarter of 2011.
2. The Union contends that the bonus in FBD Head Office is available at the level of approximately 1%. Bonus in agreed comparator companies is up to 15%.
3. The Company pay annual bonuses to staff employed in the branch network of approximately 8%.
4. The Union is seeking a bonus scheme in line with those applying in comparable external organisations to be applied to its members employed in the Company Head Office.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company maintains that the Union claim is a cost-increasing claim and is therefore debarred under Section 1.5 of the Towards 2016 Review and Transitional Agreement.
2. Basic wage increases and bonus payments are not exempted from the cost-increasing claim provision. The Union's claim for a change to the bonus scheme is by its nature cost-increasing. Changes to the bonus scheme cannot be considered in isolation, as the bonus structure is part of a total remuneration package.
3. The Company pays the National Wage Agreements and in exchange is due the protections of the wage agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Employer has argued that the claim is cost increasing in nature and that, in consequence it is precluded by Clause 1.5 of the Pay Agreement associated with the Towards 2016 Transitional Social Partnership Agreement 2008-2009.
The Court is satisfied that the Employer is entitled to rely on this provision of the Agreement. Accordingly, the Court accepts that the Union's claim is precluded and should not be pursued at this time.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
6th March, 2009______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.